Nothing, it's just that Apple's position has always been that if you want to sell anything through an app on their platform they get a 30% cut.

They do this because Apple claims that it is Apple bringing the clients to the app_developer/service_provider. People seem to accept this distorted view.
In reality: a big reason that iPlatforms are successful are because of the apps, where would these gadgets be without Angry Birds, Drop box, etc ?
By buying through apple I would accept the same sort of transaction fee that the credit card companies charge merchants, but 30% is just taking the piss.

You are correct right up to the point of "Dropbox wants to use Apple's servers to distribute their product to iDevices" at which point Apple gets to say "We don't sell stuff on our store that does what your product does." Pretty much every major provider of digital content has gone through this whole process at this point. Barnes and Noble and Amazon took the links to their stores out of their Apps, as did Audible. They can say in the app "you gotta go to our store to buy stuff" but Apple won't sell apps

Nothing, but Apple have had a rule blocking this sort of action for a long while already - the issue is that Dropbox accounts allow then to up sell a user to a Pro account, outside of the Apple in-app purchasing ecosystem. This is an issue that has long been discussed before, and has previously resulted in apps like Kindle Reader removing their store functionality for the same reason.

If you are asking why a user needs an app, its because it does more than a website - its available off line for example (yes, a website can provide an off line mode, but the storage limit is very small compared to that of an actual app).

In this case, they are talking about third party apps integrating with Dropbox using the Dropbox SDK - so the primary reason to install the app is not to replace the Dropbox website, but for whatever the app does.

Why would they? If Dropbox were to charge more for in-App purchases than on their web site then there would be an incentive to, but just because 30% of your payment goes to Apple instead of Dropbox, how many people actually care? A few. Not enough to make Apple's share price plunge.

Right, but that's rather the point, isn't it? I mean if Apple block the use of the app, but not the access to the web site then only they are losing out, and if users who would normally use the app decide to use the web site instead then they might not go back to using the app when/if Apple permits it again. ISTM that there's 2 ways a user can do the same thing, one way might get Apple some cash and the other way certainly won't. They've blocked the former. Have I misunderstood?

I'm not sure what the "one way might get Apple some cash" is. The problem is that people would be able to sign up and pay for Dropbox directly through an app, with nothing going to Apple. That's not a way for Apple to get some cash. So they block it, with the desired outcome that Dropbox feel the hurt enough that they rebuidl their API to go through Apple's cash filter. Win for Apple. Sure, there's a risk that Dropbox don't do that and those kinds of app simply become impossible on iOS, or that users just h

Its spun as a "30% cut" story but an apple i-competitor to dropbox was the first thing I thought of when I saw the headline. Then I realized apple had i.mac or idrive or some such subscription thing just like dropbox except it costs money, that I never subscribed to, years and years ago. Does apple still have that? Perhaps they're planning a relaunch or rebranding and that's the real story of suddenly coming down on dropbox like a box of bricks.

How's life in 2011? I ask because June 6th will be the 1 year anniversary of the iCloud announcement.

Whoops you got me there. I thought the iCloud was a marketing rebranding of the iDisk, same thing different ad copy. Badge engineering, like the ten companies that all sell sprinter vans, or Taurus/Sable, or Expedition/Navigator.

Don't they basically do the same thing, perhaps with somewhat renamed APIs? I can see why they'd toss the old service after some cutover time if its the same product.

Enough "online backup" services have gone south to make me not want to trust a single supplier - I have Dropbox and Google Drive, and anything that I care about goes into both. I tried SpiderOak but it's a lot less intuitive. Probably a lot more powerful and configurable if I were to spend the time learning it though.

At least with Dropbox, it makes little strategic difference (other than being a jump ahead if Dropbox drops out suddenly). All your data is on one or more hard drives. If Dropbox goes titsup, you just sign up with whoever is left standing and resync.

The only other bit of aggrevation would be dealing with the other services that use Dropbox as a portable storage medium - like 1password - and using another service to duplicate it's functionality.

Its spun as a "30% cut" story but an apple i-competitor to dropbox was the first thing I thought of when I saw the headline. Then I realized apple had i.mac or idrive or some such subscription thing just like dropbox except it costs money, that I never subscribed to, years and years ago. Does apple still have that? Perhaps they're planning a relaunch or rebranding and that's the real story of suddenly coming down on dropbox like a box of bricks.

(disclaimer, I like dropbox because of its flawless linux client. I like it alot, at least until GOOG releases a linux goog-drive client thats as good. Then its bye bye 2 gig dropbox hello 5 gig GOOG-drive. I also have stopped buying idevices and started buying android devices.)

iCloud is basically their competition to Dropbox except "applefied" meaning it does a few specific things (and probably very well) but is not a generic utility like Dropbox is. Nevertheless, they would prefer users to see things their way and subscribe to iCloud instead of Dropbox, unless they are going to get their cut. I agree, Dropbox and other generic/multi-platform services are far superior to iCloud but that's just my opinion from outside the reality distortion field.

What problems have you run into while making sure that there is enough HTML5 application cache and HTML5 local storage to fit all the resources that your application needs when the web services are used offline? Or are people who commonly use applications offline (e.g. iPod touch or iPad while on a bus) not part of your target demographic?

What's wrong with that? The users don't have the app on their iPhone, so they are taken to the company's website. Is that so horrible? That's how every other browser in the world works. Are Apple phone/padd users now verboten from visiting company websites?

Apple's position seems to be the upsell for premium storage, not so much the fact that you're taken to the website. A few users on the Dropbox forum discussing the matter even mentioned that they weren't keen on how a lot of services did this. I have to agree with an earlier post that it looks like Dropbox and Apple are already figuring things out. The dev in question is more perturbed than Dropbox seems to be over it.

The word SDK is used improperly, and what Apple is complaining about is not at all what the article states. It sickens me that articles like this reinstill false ideas of what and why Apple does things.

Simply put, Apple's policy is that for any app in the appstore, if you desire someone to purchase additional features for your app, and you tell them about it, they must be done through in-app purchases. DropBox is not doing this. It's completely okay according to Apple for the DropBox app to not say anything about buying additional storage, and then selling this additional storage on their website, but it is NOT okay according to Apple to tell the user inside the app about this additional storage, and then bypassing Apple's in-app purchase system and giving the user a link to the website.

BUT....Apple has a policy that "real world" items should not be purchased off the App Store account. For instance Postcards on the Go isn't allowed to use your Apple ID for Mailed Postcards.

So which is Dropbox? It's a "real world" service that exists seperate from the iPhone app. if I have a problem with my SERVICE on another non-apple device, will APPLE refund my money? It is definately not "black and white" even by Apple's own rules.

I know that a shopper could always choose to go another platform (Android, RIM, Microsoft, etc.), but at what point will there be sufficient incentive to allow for this behavior to be investigated as anti-competitive? Apple controls the only marketplace on their very popular platform, and is using that control to dictate how other companies do business and reach out to customers who are on that platform. Microsoft tried to do something vaguely similar in the late 90s and got called out for it. At what point do our current antitrust legislation come into effect? Is it a matter of platform market-share? Perhaps somebody with a greater understanding than I could enlighten me.

but at what point will there be sufficient incentive to allow for this behavior to be investigated as anti-competitive?

You answered your own question -

I know that a shopper could always choose to go another platform...

Anti trust laws are not intended to punish companies for being dickwads. That's perfectly legal. It's not some magic shiny sword to have the government swoop in on business practices that you don't like. As you point out, you can drop Apple from your life in complete assurance that you can back up your data, sync your contacts and play Angry Birds without a hitch.

Or maybe, just possibly, people might just for once be able to buy an app without paying an excessive device based tax that contributes to the astonishingly high profit margins of a Foxxcon device marketer.

My problem is that Apple is causing problems with 3rd parties that have nothing to do with this dispute. I never commented on whether Dropbox was right or wrong. Apple could of sent an email message that said "This is a TOS violation, fix it." They cut off API users instead. That's the criticism.

a cab driver gets stopped for running a red light (or speeding, whatever). cop arrests him. the passengers are inconvenienced. do you blame the cop?

is that a disservice to the passengers or is this a service to the community who wont suffer another death from an accident this cabbie might have caused?

i think you're seeing this way too narrowly. apple are building an ecosystem. its easy to criticize their decisions out of context, but at the end of the day what they do works for a whole lot of people.

If the cab driver was stopped for speeding where the laws were not clearly posted, or were deliberately confusing, yes, I would blame the cop for setting a speed trap. You know, speed traps - designed solely to bring in more income.

If I were Dropbox, I would say screw Apple - they get the 30% of the app, sure, but 30% of the extra storage users want? No way. What does that have to do with Apple? Why do they deserve that? They aren't buying anything in app, so what is the problem? Drop the app and let user dissatisfaction directed at Apple change their policy. If every app maker that had to face ridiculous draconian Apple policies would stand up to Apple, they would change their stupid policies. But as long as everybody keeps bending over and taking it, why should Apple change anything? They have a sweet deal going.

By this analogy the Mafia should be allowed to operate freely because everyone needs 'insurance' so that bad things don't happen. We all know that if you don't pay your insurance to Vinnie and Tony something bad will happen...

Let's be honest: Apple's Walled Garden is *not* an "Ecosystem" -- it is a kind of monopoly. It is a "pay to play" garden where you will be cast out of the garden if you eat fruit from the Tree of Revenue without paying Apple it's cut.

If I were Dropbox, I would say screw Apple - they get the 30% of the app, sure, but 30% of the extra storage users want? No way. What does that have to do with Apple? Why do they deserve that? They aren't buying anything in app, so what is the problem?

Actually, that's the whole point. When an iPhone user is using a Dropbox-enabled app, Apple is bringing that customer to Dropbox. Dropbox users can still go on their own accord to the Dropbox site and add storage without paying Apple anything. But if an app tries to solicit business that bypasses the App Store fees, Apple calls them on it. Either they remove the link or they pay 30%-- pretty simple. It's not some ethical or moral situation, just a business contract.

When an iPhone user is using a Dropbox-enabled app, Apple is bringing that customer to Dropbox.

Not necessarily. If I already had Dropbox installed on my computer, and now want to extend that to my phone, Apple has not brought Dropbox any business they didn't already have. Dropbox does have clients for Windows, Mac, and Linux as well as the mobile platforms. I would guess most people using the mobile app already had Dropbox installed on another platform.

It's not a bad rule. Here, let's move the argument into the real world. (Sadly, not a car analogy.)

I used to work at a gaming shop. One of the popular items was CCG cards (Magic and Pokemon being the big two at the time). One big revenue generator for the store was selling singles. (When you can sell the rare for the price of the pack or better, *and* sell the commons and uncommons, the math was pretty compelling).

We also had gaming space. And the rule was, no selling cards in the store. Why, you ask? Because players would bring binders of cards, take up one of our tables (using our floorspace, our electricity), and then proceed to undercut us - which is pretty easy when you have no overhead.

We tried to be nice, but they simply started making the deals, then "stepping outside" to exchange money. And yes, when we banned them we got nothing but "why are you being so mean"?

Were we saying "you can't sell your cards?" No, of course not - they're your cards. We're saying "you can't use our overhead to sell your cards". And that's what Apple is saying - if you provide a button on your App (which is being used through their app store) to buy something, Apple gets a cut. If they go to you through some other method, Apple doesn't care - you just can't cheat around it.

Your store lets people come in and play games against each other. Someone comes in and says "Hey, you know, this game can be better if you go to this website and read the strategy there." You kick him out of the store and ban him from ever mentioning the website, because it happens to sell cards on an unrelated section of the website, and selling cards is banned in your store.

That is what apple is doing here. An app has dropbox integration as a feature. The user clicks on that int

Users can't download any app that uses the NEW Dropbox SDK, and ONLY if they don't ALREADY have the Dropbox app installed on their phone.

You see, what happens is that the app using the SDK will attempt to set you up with Dropbox if you don't already have it - this CAN be done through the Dropbox app. But if the Dropbox app won't launch, it'll fire you off to Dropbox in the browser, circumventing Apple's TOS restrictions, because you can purchase additional storage for Dropbox via that browser page, meaning

App Store rule prohibits this, it's in their Licensed dev. agreement. Basically you can't use any external API that are not vetted by them. Maybe there is a legitimate fear that some nasties can be deployed that way, a vector for malware, but most likely this is just barking and sheep herding users and devs to iCloud.

Analysis of your conclusion: You are a deluded idiot, continually suprised by for profit businesses seeking profit, which you equate with them being 'bastards'. Your delusion give a pass to Dropbox, presumably because they are 'the little guy', despite their acting in contravention of Apple's quite clear rules about in app purchases.

Sounds like another "Apple (Can do no wrong)" fan-boy is in our midst.

Apple gets a fucking cut if you purchase from in-app. In fact, IF you offer in-app purchases, you have to use the app store, and Apple gets their cut.

There is not one fucking thing preventing Dropbox from pulling in-app upgrades, and doing it only on their website. Or, if they want the option in-app, their app cannot redirect to the website to purchase.

IN APP. IN FUCKING APP. IN THE FUCKING APPLICATION YOU FUCKING READING COMPREHENSION CHALLENGED FUCKING RETARDS.

Jesus, these are the fucking rules for the iTunes ecosystem, that EVERY FUCKING DEVELOPER that sells on iTunes agrees to. Whether or not we agree with them doesn't fucking matter...this is the fucking contract that was entered into between developers and Apple.

It does. Criticism is only constructive from people who understand the subject matter sufficiently well. If they simply bitch about stuff they dont know, well, its just that, bitching about stuff they dont know.

The guy (or gal) admitted to not using apple products but chooses to criticize apple's practices on behalf of people who do. How is that sensible? AND on top of that mods down people who disagree with him. Thats just childish.

My point was that the reason for the downmod doesn't matter, since it was negated by the posting.

Also, where did they criticize anything? They posted a reply to a post that basically said "if you don't like a company's business practices, don't give them money", sarcastically pointing out that this was obvious and already being done. He wasn't downmidding someone who disagreed with him; on the contrary, he was voicing agreement (by stating that he was already doing what the posted suggested) and the downmod

...They could also say hey, if you like to pay for your account upgrade here, its a 30% surcharge....

Actually, as far as I know, they can't do that, likely because it would have the same effect as telling them to go to their website and buy instead of letting Apple get a cut. No source on that, though, so I may be wrong.

A lot of people gripe about the 30% cut for in-app purchases, and it looks like crap at first glance. At the same time, without it people could get around paying Apple anything at all by making apps "free" and then having them pay for features with an in-app purchase, and thus get 100% of the money. Same for telling users to go to a website to buy something: devs could get around paying Apple one cent if that were an allowed process.

Of course, Apple probably also wants to have a system wherein it's a more seamless experience for users to pay for something. Instead of downloading a "free" app and then going through the developer's website and entering your credit card info again to pay to actually use the app, you just pay for the app at download and have everything available at the start.

Then again, there are people who are completely against Apple taking a cut at all. To those people, I remind them that Apple is a for-profit company, not a charity, and that (by all accounts) the App Store merely pays for itself. There's also the fact that Apple handles distribution costs and payment processing, both of which do cost money.

(I may be wrong about all this. I just woke up and am still bleary-eyed, after all, which is a bad condition for posting.)

A lot of people gripe about the 30% cut for in-app purchases, and it looks like crap at first glance. At the same time, without it people could get around paying Apple anything at all by making apps "free" and then having them pay for features with an in-app purchase, and thus get 100% of the money. Same for telling users to go to a website to buy something: devs could get around paying Apple one cent if that were an allowed process.

There is a clear distinction between allowing what you just described and d

"If apple's business doesnt suit you, dont buy, simple as that."
No problem. Done and done.
No, they are not a monopoly (yet) but they are trying very hard to be with their walled garden approach and lawsuits

THe point of my comment was that any large internet company can do what Dropbox does and that dropbox rides the coattails of another service. Im glad you like it, but I dont see them surviving in the face of the big players rolling out storage. I used dropbox because they had a client for everything, but if they dont change their pricing soon, i'll be moving over to Gdrive.

I agree with part A, Part B, I am unconvinced of. I have never used dropbox, at all. From the day I heard of it...I wanted something just like it, but not run by someone else, or at least somewhat secure.

I used UbuntuOne for a while, which fell apart when I had to start using a Redhat desktop on my work laptop. Oops... getting U1 on any linux other than Ubuntu isn't supported at all.... I could do it, but it was painful and was going to potentially be painful on every upgrade...

Apple has every right to limit services they offer to both their customers, and their solution partners/providers. The interesting thing is that, Apple's business practices are still surprising some people after so many years. If the way they conduct their business is a problem, anybody/everybody is free to move away their own business from Apple platform.

I moved away from IOS to Android. I paid 50 bucks for a data recovery program by which I lifted all my SMS and similar data from my Iphone. The data I r

In a fair world, Apple's rules wouldn't matter. Anyone who wanted to could simply avoid using the App Store and use an alternative, which iOS users could happily use without problems.

That's how it works in the Android world. Don't like Google Play's rules? Well, there's the Amazon AppStore. And there's AppsDB. And, of course, you can just let users download the APK (nothing to do with HOSTS files, I'm referring to the file type of Android apps) directly. Why? Because Android acknowledges something that iOS doesn't: If someone BOUGHT the device. It's THEIRS. Nobody (outside of government and service providers you choose to work with) has the right to tell you what you can and can't do with what you bought after it's been sold.

That's how it should be. When Apple stops trying to control what you run on your own phone, Apple's choices about who it bans from the AppStore will cease to be controversial.

>>>Anyone who wanted to could simply avoid using the App Store and use an alternative... That's how it works in the Android world. Don't like Google Play's rules?.....Amazon AppStore. AppsDB. And, of course, you can just let users download the APK directly.>>>

And if that's something that's important to people, then they'll buy Android for that advantage. You, as a discriminating customer, are free to do that. But, Apple is free to make whatever rules it wants in it's ecosystem.

This is not about legality. No one's disputing that. Of COURSE Apple has the "right" to do what it wants on its platform. This is not about whether or not what Apple is doing is legal. It's about them being assholes. It's legal to be an asshole for sure, but they're still assholes.

You mean rules that allow Apple to extort revenues out of app developers for services that Apple doesn't provide? Dropbox is a cross platform application - why should they let Apple take a cut on sales of services that can be used by the same user on a PC, MacIntosh, Linux, Android or iOS device?

This issue and ones like it will have to go viral and hit more than just tech sites for people to care. In other words, so long as Apple's products are a fashion/status symbol, their users won't care so much about other people's first world problems.:p

If I make a "rule" that every time you post to/. you have to pay me $1, and you agree to it, I'll fucking swear by it until you can get the rule revoked.

Silly or not, these are the fucking rules for playing in the iOS garden right now. Dropbox agreed to those rules. Whether or not we think they're fucking silly, or controlling, or whatever is fucking irrelevant to the entire conversation at hand...the rules have been "broken" and those people using the Dropbox SDK have had the massive inconvenience of re

I wouldn't care normally. What gets under my skin is cutting off people using Dropbox SDK that have nothing to do with this.

Trivial example: what about photographers using it to upload their work. What if they were working today. They had nothing to do with this. What about people using the SDK to work on files on an office app?

I can understand how it might happen if it's an escalating situation, but causing 3rd parties problem is not the first action to take.

What gets under my skin is cutting off people using Dropbox SDK that have nothing to do with this.

Then you'll be pleased to learn that existing apps using previous Dropbox SDK versions still work perfectly and can still be downloaded from the app store (including Dropbox's own app). Nothing that was already approved has been removed or uninstalled.

You don't get it? Two business have a dispute which they are working out. In the meantime Apple is stopping developers from incorporating Dropbox's API and stopping users from using those apps. The users suffer while the businesses argue.

A more reasonable response would be for Apple to tell Dropbox this particular element of their app is unacceptable and must be changed within one month or one week or some time frame WITHOUT holding the users hostage in the meantime.

Who is holding users hostage - if the apps are an update to an existing app, the existing app doesnt get pulled from the store. If its a brand new app, the developers are in no different a situation than they were last week.

Dropbox already have a version of the SDK which removes the offending links - its available in the forum thread about the issue.

Because they dont have a monopoly, thats why. Sometimes i think people forget how far MS went and how truly abusive they became. Apple is just guarding its slice of the pie, they know they will never reach MS's level of ubiquity (back in the day). MS tried to eat the whole pie, forever.

Because they are not a monopoly. There is choice in the smartphone & tablet market. If you don't like Apple's walled garden, get an Android. And even if Android had never happened, I still don't think that they would be considered a monopoly because it's an optional technology. You can use a laptop for most things that an iP* can do.

According to/. Apple is "dying" in the smartphone marketplace under withering domination by Android. If that's the case, how can they be in violation of antitrust laws if they are not in a monopoly position? Surely consumers are free to choose another platform? Or is all of the Android talk simply false?

It's either one or the other. (Hint: Android's marketshare is not made up).